AIT-2008-182-ITAT
Iseva Systems Pvt Ltd Vs The Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore

In view of the incoming and outgoing expenses continuously from a call centre, 75% of the telecommunication expenditure as estimated by CIT(A) is reduced to 50% to be considered as attributable to the delivery of software outside India which should be reduced from the export turnover

AIT-2008-185-ITAT
Styler India Pvt. Ltd Vs. JCIT, Pune

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled for expenditure of Rs 49,27,336/-, mainly comprising Rs 17,92,600/- expenditure under the head “Building, Repair & Renovation" and Rs 15,65,239/- under the head "Exhibition / Launch Expenses" disallowed being expended prior to setting up of the business?"

AIT-2008-186-ITAT
Sri Shankar R. Mhatre Vs The ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

The assessee in the declaration under VDIS-97disclosed assets i.e. land and buildings totally valued at Rs.33,85,000/-, but did not pay the tax on the assets so disclosed. Based on the information received, the Assessing Officer reopened the proceedings under section 147 and issued notice under section 148- the reopening in question is also bad in law

AIT-2008-187-ITAT
Hotel Marina Vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of foreign made car under section 32(1) Proviso of Income-tax Act, 1961?

AIT-2008-188-ITAT
Estel Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Payment is not towards rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services but merely use of Internet access facility of a deserved bandwidth. payment cannot be covered as chargeable to tax u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act

AIT-2008-189-ITAT
Mayur Recreational & Development Limited Vs. ACIT, New Delhi-Special Bench

Annual value of the property which is let out during the relevant year would be the highest of the following three sums: (i) Municipal valuation , (ii) The fair rent determined by the Rent Control Act, (iii) The actual rent received by the owner -standard rent of the property in question belonging to the assessee can be determined by applying a rate of 10% to the base value i.e. aggregate amount of the actual cost of construction and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of the construction

AIT-2008-191-ITAT
Nagarjuna Agro Tech. Ltd Vs. DCIT, Hyderabad

Claim for deduction of Rs.31,29,350 representing sales tax liability of assessee converted into sales tax loan, is clearly admissible under sec. 43B and the disallowance made by way of prima facie adjustment while processing the return under sec. 1413(1)(a) of the Act is not just and proper

AIT-2008-192-ITAT
Kenaram Saha & Subhash Saha Vs Income-tax, Murshidabad

AIT-2008-193-ITAT
Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT, Mumbai

AIT-2008-194-ITAT
Ambica Steels Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

AIT-2008-197-ITAT
Shri R. K. Gupta Vs. ITO, New Delhi

The assessment made, without issue and service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction and therefore the same is null and void ab initio and deserves to be annulled

AIT-2008-198-ITAT
M/s B G Chitale Vs. DCIT
Special Bench

The process of standardization and pasteurization of milk amounts to processing but does not amount to manufacture/ production for the purpose of claiming deduction under sections 80-I and 80HHA of the Act.

Depreciation not claimed can not be thrust on the assessee in computing the total income

AIT-2008-202-ITAT
Medicare Investments Limited Vs. JCIT, New Delhi - Special Bench

Special Bench-Loss on account of sale of debentures is allowable

AIT-2008-204-ITAT
Real Image Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, Chennai

Since service tax was not payable by the Assessee, the rigour of sec.43B could not have been applied to the case of the Assessee

AIT-2008-209-ITAT
M/s Fidelity Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

AIT-2008-211-ITAT
M/s. Bagpet Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT, New Delhi

AIT-2008-212-ITAT
Gujarat Credit Corporation Ltd. Vs ACIT, Ahmedabad

AIT-2008-214-ITAT
Goldmine Shares And Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Ahmedabad

Special Bench - in view of the specific provisions of Section 80IA(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of the quantum of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years

AIT-2008-218-ITAT
Jindal Photo Films Ltd Vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The product (photographic apparatus and goods) being manufactured by the assessee did not come under Eleventh Schedule of the Act and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act

AIT-2008-226-ITAT
Asia Aviation Ltd Vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Expenditure in respect of an air craft engine for its overhauling and hot air inspection does not bring a new asset into existence or does not give the assessee a new or different advantage. The expenditure cannot be said to be a capital expenditure. The assessee is entitled to claim the expenditure as revenue expenditure

AIT-2008-227-ITAT
Genesis Overseas Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The requisite satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings as required in law was not at all discernible from the said assessment order. penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were bad in law and the penalty imposed u/s 271 (1)(c) in pursuance of such invalid initiation is not sustainable

AIT-2008-228-ITAT
Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services (P) Ltd Vs. ITO, New Delhi

If the amount of bad debt has been written off in the accounts of various persons, the same will be allowable as deduction. In case where the amount has been claimed as provision for bad and doubtful debts is not written off in the accounts of various persons, the same will not be allowable as deduction in view of the Explanation to section 3 6( 1)( vii) of the Act.

AIT-2008-230-ITAT
Energy Infrastructure (India) Ltd Vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Non-acceptance of an application filed u/s 154 contending therein that income earned by the assessee by way of interest on lien money kept for the purpose of bank guarantee during the period of pre-commencement of business which was wrongly shown as income should be reduced from returned and assessed income

AIT-2008-231-ITAT
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd Vs. DCIT, New Delhi

AO assessed ALV of flats which the assessee had constructed and which were lying unsold under the head "Income from house property". The said flats were its stock-in-trade- ALV could not be brought to tax under the head "Income from house property".

AIT-2008-240-ITAT
Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd Vs. ITO, Surat - Special Bench

Assessees not liable to deduct the tax at source under section 194C from  payment made to Mukamdams and Transporters by Zone Samiti; assessees not liable for deduction of tax under section 194C from  payments made as advances to its member farmers for purchase of sugarcane because  agreement is for cane grower to bring sugar cane to assessee's factory

While framing assessment for A Y 2003-04, provisions of Section 32(2) as applicable to that year were liable to be taken into account , unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years was liable to be set off against income under any head- AO was fully justified in setting off the unabsorbed depreciation relating to AY 1999-2000 against income from house property for year under

Investments in shares on the Mumbai Stock Exchange were at par with loans and advances and consequently income form such investments amounted to interest chargeable under the Interest-tax Act

Whether consideration claimed to have been received on account of sale of jewellery etc relating to disclosures made under VDIS scheme 1997 can be considered to be the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under any of the provisions of Income Tax Act?

The provision of Sec. 9 of I.T. Act are not attracted to the facts of this case the activities of liaison offices are preparatory and auxiliary in character and, therefore, cannot be treated as permanent establishment

Tax paid by the employer in respect of salaries paid to the employees is "salary" under Rule 3, for the purpose of computing the value of perquisites in respect of rent-free accommodation provided to the expatriate employees

The amount of Rs.1,15,70,000/- received by CA Firm as compensation for withdrawing from Deloitte Haskins & Sells Partnership is chargeable to tax as revenue receipt.